User:Chupper/Unwarranted criticism sections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chupper/Unwarranted_criticism_sections.

This page is a personal policy for Chupper on the topic of unwarranted criticism sections. It is not a policy officially endorsed by Wikipedia or anyone else. If you wish to follow or reference this policy, feel free to do so!

Contents

[edit] Why criticism sections can be bad

The frequency of criticism sections popping up among Wikipedia is growing. Many times these 'criticism' sections become so huge and relevant that the sections are replaced by their own articles on the specific topic.

The problem arises when criticism sections are not representative and/or are not referenced. These sections seem to be a magnet for edits not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Main article: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX

The most severe issue that can come up is the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox to state an opinion. Because Wikipedia can be a great place for people to learn about subjects, some editors take advantage and subtly insert their opinions into the article.

Sometimes these opinions are even referenced in 1 or 2 other outside sources. Although referenced, they are not necessarily representative enough of society to be worth noting. Criticism sections should only include feelings of people if they were big enough to make an impact on the topic at hand or were a major reason for the topic's becoming noticed.

[edit] Weasel words

Main article: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

As mentioned above, whether referenced a few times or not referenced at all, opinions that aren't significant to the topic sometimes seem to be justified, but actually are not. In certain cases 'critic editors' will state an opinion vicarously through another source by using words such as "Critics argue", "Some say that", or "It is believed". These are weasel words and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policy.

[edit] Original research

Main article: Wikipedia:No original research

'Critic editors' will sometimes write their own original research or opinions and post it to the article. Even if the experiment or research is completely valid, Wikipedia is not the medium that is to be used to post it according to the policy.

[edit] NPOV Wars

Sometimes when an unwarranted criticism section or statement is made on the article, other neutral editors will feel the need to keep it neutral by adding a counterpoint after it. These have a tendency of going back and forth so that the criticism section becomes a list of alternating opinions on the subject.

Example (This example is something I came across when editing the Bono article. This example is not recreated verbatim nor is it necessarily accurate or referenced. It is only here to illustrate a point.):

Line # Edit made
Line 1: "Critics decry Bono for getting governments to assist Africa but minimizing tax liability in his own country."
Line 2: "U2 pointed out they have done nothing illegal"
Line 3: "Others say that money they aren't being paid in taxes to Ireland could have helped the very cause Bono is pushing."
Line 4: "Some have pointed out that Bono has sent thousands if not millions of dollars to these charities directly out of his own pocket."
Line 5: "Critics call Bono a hypocrite for not assisting his own country in the very charity he is asking them to help."
Line 6: "U2's manager stated that almost everyone in the world tries to legally reduce their tax liability and Bono is doing just that."

[edit] Solutions

  • Keep the section, reduce the word count. Remember that fewer words often work better than many words. Assuming the section is important enough to be mentioned, reduce the word count to a tolerable level. Criticism sections, generally, should not make up most or even a quarter of the word count of the article.
  • Turn into a subsection, reduce the word count. Perhaps if a specific subtopic of the article is being criticized and is relevant enough to be mentioned, then make the the criticism section a subsection of the applicable subtopic.
  • Remove the section and relocate relevant points. If the section is large and filled with statements not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, but includes a few referenced & relavant sentences, simply delete the section and relocate the sentences to the applicable part of the article.
  • Delete the section completely. Many times these sections are not referenced at all because no sources on the subject exist. If this is the case, and the criticisms are not relevant enough at all, deleting the section can be a good idea.

[edit] Explain your actions

These criticism sections can be delicate situations for people. If opinions are changed or removed completely for appropriate reasons, make sure you explain on the talk page of the article what you have done and why. It may also be a good idea to refer to the talk page in your edit summary if you do this.

Be sure to link to Wikipedia's policies and/or this page to better explain to other editors the reasons for your edits. To reference this page simply add the code [[User:Chupper/Unwarranted criticism sections|Unwarranted criticism user policy]] to your section of the talk page.

[edit] See also

[edit] Chupper's "policies"?!?

Who are you? Since when do you get to make "policies" here?